2.7 4.

Article

Cyclic Testing of a Composite Joint

between a Reinforced Concrete
Column and a Steel Beam

Dang Dung Le, Xuan-Huy Nguyen and Quang-Huy Nguyen

Special Issue
Structural Performances of Concrete Composite Members: Experimental, Theoretical, Numerical
Approaches
Edited by
Prof. Dr. Kang Su Kim, Prof. Dr. Myoungsu (James) Shin and Prof. Dr. Kil-Hee Kim

https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072385
 applied
sciences
Article
Cyclic Testing of a Composite Joint between a
Reinforced Concrete Column and a Steel Beam
Dang Dung Le 1, *, Xuan-Huy Nguyen 1 and Quang-Huy Nguyen 2
1 Faculty of Construction Engineering, University of Transport and Communications, Hanoi 10000, Vietnam;
nguyenxuanhuy@utc.edu.vn
2 Department of Civil Engineering and Urban Planning, INSA de Rennes, 35700 Rennes, France;
Quang-Huy.Nguyen@insa-rennes.fr
* Correspondence: ledangdung@utc.edu.vn; Tel.: +84-0973-223-400




Received: 15 February 2020; Accepted: 25 March 2020; Published: 31 March 2020


Abstract: This paper presents an experimental study on the seismic performance of a novel composite
joint between reinforced concrete columns and steel beams (RCSs) for frame structures. In the
proposed RCS joint, an H steel profile totally embedded inside an RC column is directly welded to the
steel beam. The H steel profile was covered by two supplementary plates to avoid the stirrups resisting
the shear in the connection region. Two full-scale joints were built and tested under reversed-cyclic
loading at the University of Transport and Communications of Vietnam. Seismic performance in
terms of load-bearing capacity, story drift capacity, energy dissipation, and stiffness degradation were
evaluated. The test specimen showed a good response to cyclic load reversals.

Keywords: cyclic behavior; RCS joint; through column type; seismic

1. Introduction
The reinforced concrete column and steel beam (RCS) frames consist of reinforced concrete (RC)
columns and steel (S) beams. This type of structure has several advantages over traditional RC frames
or steel frames, including lower cost and structure weight reduction. RC columns offer superior
damping properties to a structure, especially in tall buildings. Indeed, using RC instead of structural
steel as columns can result in substantial savings in material cost and an increase in the structural
damping and lateral stiffness of the building. The energy dissipation capacity can accordingly be
provided through steel beams. In addition, steel floor systems are significantly lighter compared to
RC floor systems, leading to substantial reductions in the weight of the building, foundation costs,
and inertial forces. To effectively apply RCS frames in a real structure, it is necessary to study the
composite connection between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns. Extensive studies have
been conducted to study the basic force transfer mechanisms in connection regions and the performance
of various joint configurations that enhance the connection performance under seismic excitations [1–5].
The American Society of Civil Engineers [6] published design guidelines for composite RCS joints in low
to moderate seismic regions. Recent studies have focused on the development of design guidelines for
composite connections in RCS frame structures located in highly seismic regions. Nishiyama et al. [7]
have developed the guidelines for “Steel-Concrete Composite Structures for Seismic Design” for
ordinary reinforced concrete columns–steel beam buildings. As illustrated in Figure 1, there are
two main categories in RCS connections, which are the through-beam and through-column types [8].
In the through-beam type, the steel beam is extended continuously through concrete columns. In the
through-column type, the beam flanges are interrupted at the column faces to increase longitudinal
reinforcements and to facilitate the placement of concrete in the RCS joints.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385; doi:10.3390/app10072385 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 2 of 17

Steel beams Steel plates

Steel beams

Reinforced concrete column Reinforced concrete column

Through-beam type Through-column type

–
Figure 1. Two types of beam–column joint.

According to the literature, the through-beam type displays more ductile behavior. The beam
continuously passing through the column panel zones behave in a ductile manner under seismic loading;
however, an orthogonal moment connection in the panel zone may be labor-intensive. Meanwhile, the
through-column type, which often consists of cover plates or diaphragm plates for connecting steel
beams to concrete columns, requires less workmanship and control during construction to assure a
high ductility and strength. Using the through-column type may facilitate field construction; however,
additional effort is needed in the connection details to ensure a better seismic capacity in terms of
strength and ductility.
Li et al. [9] has summarized different studies on the seismic performance of RCS beam-to-column
joints among other composite RC and steel moment frame structures. Their study found that when the
force transfer between the beam and column is ensured, RCS connections are capable of providing a
reliable amount of strength and ductility under seismic loading. There has been a significant–amount
of recent investigations on the behavior and design of RCS connections for seismic loading, especially
regarding the through-column type. Tao et al. [10] presented an investigation on cyclic loading
tests of four hybrid joints between steel-reinforced concrete columns and steel truss beams. As a
result, the joints with flexural failure at the end of beams showed a higher stiffness and strength and
a better ductility and energy dissipation capacity than those with shear failure at their core. The
composite behaviors can be achieved through the natural cohesion between the steel and concrete for
the steel-reinforced concrete column in the hybrid subassembly no matter whether the shear studs are
arranged or not. Zibasokhan et al. [11] proposed six new types of composite steel–concrete connections
between continuous concrete columns and steel beam segments. In their proposed configuration, a steel
sleeve was used to transfer loads from the steel beam to the concrete column. Connection components
are either steel studs or U-channels used in two different types of joints to connect the sleeve to the
concrete column. Based on the experimental results, appropriate ranges for the thickness and height
of the steel sleeves were determined. Eghbali et al. [12] carried out experiments to investigate the
seismic performance for another through-column-type joint. In this type of connection, the beams,
one of I-section and the other of channel section, were connected to a vertical plate passing through
the concrete column (namely through the plate). The rigid shear connectors were employed to limit
the movement between the steel beams and concrete columns. The experimental results showed that
the through plate combined with the concrete provided a strong panel with elastic behavior, and
the suggested connection was categorized as a fully restrained – connection. The European project
Smartcoco [13] proposed a type of exterior RCS connection in which a steel profile totally encased inside
an RC column is directly welded to the steel beam. This connection design allowed for better force
transmission from steel beams to columns compared with the classical RCS joints. An experimental
study on the cyclic behavior of this RCS joint type conducted by Nguyen et al. [14] showed that it
could be used as a dissipative element in ductility class medium structures. However, this joint design
required a complex set of stirrups in the connection zone because the stirrups had to go through the
steel beam.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 3 of 17

To overcome this inconvenience, a novel RCS beam–column joint, in which an H steel profile
section reinforced
covered by 8 Φ 25 longitudinal
by two supplementary steel bars,
plates embedded as shown
inside an RCincolumn
Figure is
2. directly
The stirrup reinforcements
welded to the steel
were
beam,38 Φ 10
was bars with
proposed a constant
(Figure spacing
2). The of 50 mm. Theplates
two supplementary steel beam was 2 mininthis
are included length with
design to the cross
avoid the
stirrups resisting the shear in the connection region. A numerical study based on 3D finite element
(FE) modeling recently performed by Nguyen et al. [15] indicated that the static behavior of this novel
joint depended strongly on the length of the encased steel profiles. It has been observed that the
presence of supplementary plates in joint regions allowed for the removal of the stirrups in this region.
Furthermore, the parametric study performed with various lengths of supplementary plates pointed
out that supplementary plates were useful only at the beam–column connection. However, the cyclic
behavior of this type of connection has not been studied yet.

D10s50 Reinforced concrete column D10s50 Reinforced concrete column

(D10s100)

(D10s100)
C C C C
400

400
1500

1500

D25 D25
H profile H profile
400 400
C-C A A A-A A A

D B
1200

D B
3400

3400

Steel beam
400

Steel beam
1200

400

600

I400 180  20  25 I400 180  20  25

Supplementary plate
5D10 600x220x12
Supplementary
1500

1500

H profile
5D10 plate
200 180  20  20
(D10s100)

(D10s100)

H profile
D25
200 180  20  20
400
D25
D-D
400
B-B
1800 400 1800 400

SC1 without supplementary plate SC2 with supplementary plates

Figure 2. Description of the test specimens.

This paper describes an experimental study on the seismic performance of the above-mentioned
novel joint. Two full-scale composite joints with and without supplementary plates were tested
under reversed-cyclic loading. The seismic performance in terms of load-bearing capacity, story drift
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 4 of 17

capacity, ductility, energy dissipation, and stiffness was monitored and evaluated, and the results are
presented herein.

2. Details of Specimens

2.1. Geometry
This kind of joint detail is not covered by the existing design guidelines. Eurocode 4 gives
some provisions that can
 partly be used for the design of such a joint.
  The specimens (namely

SC1 and SC2) were designed according to the provisions of Eurocode 4 [16] and existing research
works in the literature. Both specimens consisted of a 3.4 m height RC column with 40 cm × 40 cm
square cross-section reinforced
  
by 8 Φ 25 longitudinal steel bars, as shown in Figure 2. The stirrup
reinforcements were 38 Φ 10 bars with a constant spacing of 50 mm. The steel beam was 2 m in length
  
with the cross-section dimension shown in Figure 3. The steel beam was welded to an H profile,
which was fully encased into the RC column. The difference between specimens SC1 and SC2 was the
presence of two supplementary plates welded to the flanges of the H profile. The dimension of the H
profile and the supplementary plates is indicated in Figure 2. It is noted that the stirrups inside of the
connection region of the specimen SC1 were passed through 12-mm holes in the steel beam web to
play the role of shear reinforcement, while in specimen SC2, they were not. The stirrups were present
in the connection zone of the specimen SC2 just for the structural reinforcement.

Figure 3. Casting of the specimens.

2.2. The Materials’ Properties

2.2. The Materials’ Properties
The specimens were constructed using normal-weight, ready-mixed concrete with a targeted
28-day concrete compressive strength of 44.5 MPa. The actual concrete compressive strength was
determined based on the average value of compressive test carried out on standard cylinders. On the
day of testing of the specimens, the obtained strength of the concrete was 45.2 MPa. The material
properties of the reinforcement and structural steel were determined using a standard tensile test.
The yield stress and ultimate stress are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Structural and reinforcing steel properties.

Model Steel Beam Embedded Profile Supplementary Plate Rebar Stirrup

Modulus (GPa) 210 210 205 ary 200 198
Yield stress (MPa) 305 305 295 425 520
Ultimate strength (MPa) 435 435 430 595 630
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 5 of 17

2.3. Specimen Preparation

Two specimens were constructed and cast together at the Construction Materials Laboratory of the
University of Transport and Communications, Vietnam. In the beginning, the steel beam was welded
to an H profile. Then, two supplementary plates welded to the flanges of the H profile for specimen
SC2. Afterward, they were placed in the mold along the reinforcement cage. Finally, the normal
concrete was poured into the column. In this experimental investigation, concrete was designed to be
self-compacting. However, the mechanical vibrator was also used to ensure that the concrete filled the
specimen well, especially in the joint region.

3. Test Setup, Loading Protocol, and Instrumentation

The experimental test setup is shown in Figure 4. A hydraulic actuator APD-1000 (Anco
Engineering, USA) with a 1000 kN capacity and a stroke length of 250 mm was used to apply the cyclic
lateral displacements at the top of the beam. This actuator was operated in displacement control and
horizontally held to the strong wall of the laboratory. A steel plate was used in the space between the
specimen and the actuator for a smooth transfer of the actuator load at the beam level. Pinned boundary
conditions at each end of the columns were simulated using two supports. No restraint was provided
against rotation along any axis.

Pin 1000 kN Load cell

Actuator

LVDT3
Pin
Reaction wall

Steel beam

Push Pull
1850

LVDT4
Actuator

Reinforced concrete column

LVDT5 Reaction frame

3000 Strong floor

Figure 4. Test setup.

A constant axial load of 800 kN was applied and maintained throughout the test at the end of the
column by a hydraulic actuator (CGS250P250, Europress, Italy). Then, the lateral displacement was
imposed cyclically, in a quasi-static way, at the end of the beam. The loading cycle consisted of a series
of reversed-displacement cycles of increasing amplitude (Figure 5). The first steps were at a 0.25%
drift story, followed by steps at 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75%, 2%, 2.25%, 2.5%, 3%, 3.5%, 4%,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 6 of 17

4.5%, 5%, and 5.5%. Each drift step consisted of two cycles of push and pull. Note that the drift of the
specimen was calculated as the ratio of the total relative horizontal displacement of the steel beam at
the loading point to the distance between this point and the axis of the column.

Figure 5. Lateral loading protocol.

To collect the information regarding the joint distortion and the yielding of the components,
several different instruments were used when testing the specimens. The arrangement of the strain
gauges and rosettes is presented in Figure 6. During the loading, the test results were recorded every
second. At the joint region, six strain gauges (KFGS-5-120-C1, Kyowa, Japan) were placed on both
transverse and longitudinal reinforcements of the column. There were also four strain gauge rosettes
(KFGS-10-120-D17-11, Kyowa, Japan) arranged in the embedded steel profile.

Figure 6. Strain gauge (D and T) and rosette (R) locations.

4. Experimental Results and Analysis

4.1. Cracking Pattern

During the test, the cracks on the specimens were identified and hand-marked. Three types of
cracks were observed in this experimental study, which include:

• Diagonal cracks on two lateral faces at the center of the joint region (type 1).

• Diagonal (inclined) cracks outside of the joint region (type 2).

• Horizontal cracks located at the column faces (type 3).

Figure 7 shows the crack patterns of specimen SC1 from the 0.5% drift to the 5.5% drift. From the
0.5% drift in the pull direction of loading, the first diagonal crack appeared at the center of the joint
region. In the pull direction of loading (compression), some microcracks were also detected. They were
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 7 of 17

due to the local compression force resulting from the transmission of the shear force of the beam on the
column. The cracks were propagated due to the 0.75% drift but they were particularly concentrated
in the joint region. From the 1% drift, the microcracks formed in the pull direction had propagated.
The diagonal crack appeared in two directions of loading but that damage did not take place outside of
the joint region. The 1.5% drift provided the first damage that was observed outside of the joint region,
including diagonal cracks (type 2) that extended from previous steps and some new horizontal cracks
(type 3). The diagonal cracks propagated and widened gradually due to the 2.5% drift. However, the
horizontal cracks (type 3) propagated slowly due to the presence of axial loading. Then, from the 3.5%
drift, these horizontal cracks were connected to the diagonal cracks located outside of the joint region.
In the last step of loading (drift of 5.5%), the diagonal cracks crossed the entire width of the specimen
from the bottom corner to the opposite side at approximately 45 degrees.

Figure 7. Crack pattern of specimen SC1.

It should be noted that by adding the supplementary plates, the ordinal of failure modes of
specimen SC2 was different in comparison with specimen SC1 (see Figure 8). From the 1% drift, the
damage detected was the horizontal crack located outside of the joint region (type 3). Then, from the
1.5% drift, the diagonal cracks (type 1) appeared at the joint region but they propagated less in SC2
than SC1. From the 2.5%, 3.5%, and 4.5% drifts, the damage developed outside of the joint region in
particular. They included the diagonal cracks that extended from the joint region (type 2) and various
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 8 of 17

horizontal cracks crossing the half-width of the column. In the final step, the diagonal cracks on the
front face connected to the vertical crack on the side face of the column. These cracks were opened,
and consequently, the column was crushed. It was observed that the damage distributed to the inside
and the outside of the joint region.

Figure 8. Crack pattern of specimen SC2.

4.2. Hysteresis Curves

Figure 9 shows the specimen behavior regarding the joint-bending moment versus drift response
in terms of the hysteresis loop for two specimens. It can be seen that in both specimens, there was no
pinching effect when the loading was inversed. It can also be observed that specimen SC2 was stiffer
and stronger than specimen SC1. Furthermore, the specimen behaved more like steel joint behavior
than RC joint behavior; this is to say that the energy dissipation capacity and the ductility of the studied
hybrid joint are suitable for RCS frames as part of a seismic design.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 9 of 17

Pull

Residual deformations

Push

–
Figure 9. Hysteresis moment–drift response of specimens.

The cyclic moment–drift – envelope curves for each specimen is presented in Figure 10 such that
they can be compared. Table 2 presents the values –of the joint-bending moment corresponding to the
maximum drift. As can be seen, the moment-bearing capacity of specimen SC1 was 779.2 kNm (at
–
4% drift) while that of specimen SC2 was 927.3 kNm (at 5% drift). This is to say that the two plates
used in the joint region increased the moment-bearing capacity by about 19% on average for pull and
push. For instance, for the 5.5% drift, specimen SC2 had a moment-bearing capacity that was 21%
greater than specimen SC1. Furthermore, Table 2 also indicates that the strength degradation was more
apparent in specimen SC1 than SC2. –
By observing the moment–drift envelope curves in Figure 10, one can say that the global cyclic
behavior of the tested specimens was similar. – Indeed, when the drift was smaller than 1%, the two
–
curves were superimposed. The moment–drift response of the joint could be subdivided into three steps.
yielding of the joints’ components. The first step was from zero to 2% drift, where the behavior was
Each step was characterized by several variables, such as drift, stiffness degradation, and yielding
–
of the joints’ components. The first step was from zero to 2% drift, where the behavior was almost
linearyielding
and theofcracking
the joints’was not clear.The
components. The second
first step
step was waszero
from from 2% drift,
to 2% to 4%where
drift,the
where the behavior
behavior was
was nonlinear and the yielding took place at different points of the steel component in the joint region.
This was correlated with the important crack propagation and opening observed during this step.
The last step was from 4% drift to the end of the test, where the specimen reached the load-bearing
capacity and the resistance decreased due to concrete splitting and spalling. In conclusion, the use of
the steel plates at the joint region significantly improved the behavior of the studied hybrid joint as
seen by the increase in the moment-bearing capacity and the decrease in the residual deformations.
As such, this kind of joint detail is suitable for restoring, repairing, and strengthening structures after
experiencing damage.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

–
Figure 10. Comparison between the moment–drift envelope curves.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 10 of 17

Table 2. Summary of the test results.

SC1 SC1 SC2 SC2 SC1 SC1 SC2 SC2

Pull Push
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Drift (%) Joint-Bending Moment (kNm) Drift (%) Joint-Bending Moment (kNm)
0.25 129.7 131.4 137.1 134.7 −0.25 −124 −120.2 −132.3 −131.8
0.5 244.1 246.4 253.5 246.1 −0.5 −233.3 −230 −244.6 −242.4
0.75 342.8 339.4 353.7 346.9 −0.75 −327.6 −324.5 −346.4 −343.4
1 419.9 415.9 448.4 443.6 −1 −408 −404.2 −437.2 −427.4
1.25 492 485.5 526.5 516.3 −1.25 −479.3 −474.2 −517.2 −505.1
1.5 560.9 556.7 593.8 587.3 −1.5 −544 −540.2 −588.5 −584.3
1.75 624.2 622.3 666.6 660.7 −1.75 −608.7 −602.6 −651.4 −645.8
2 669.8 656.4 727.8 719.7 −2 −653 −644.1 −703.2 −695.3
2.25 699.2 684.7 774.9 768.5 −2.25 −680.1 −669.9 −751.3 −744.7
2.5 718.4 704.4 812.9 793.7 −2.5 −704.8 −694.3 −794.1 −775.6
3 749.6 723.2 867.9 841.8 −3 −723.2 −710.2 −849.3 −823.9
3.5 762.3 749.5 901.3 883.6 −3.5 −743.9 −733.4 −877.5 −860.6
4 779.2 755.1 915.9 899.4 −4 −757.2 −742.1 −892.6 −876.6
4.5 772 753.1 923.4 908.1 −4.5 −751.2 −736.1 −904.7 −886.6
5 768 749.6 927.3 914.8 −5 −747.6 −728.7 −910.6 −896.5
5.5 762.7 748.5 924.7 906.8 −5.5 −731.9 −718.7 −905.1 −887.5

4.3. Strain Analysis

The yielding points detected from the strain gage and rosette data are reported on the moment–drift
envelope curves in Figure 11. It was observed that the yielding of the steel at the same position in two
specimens occurred at different levels of loading. All the points where the strain gauges and rosettes
were glued yielded between 1% and 2.5% drift for specimen SC1 and between 1.5% and 4% drift for
specimen SC2. This is to say that the two plates added in specimen SC2 changed the force transfer
mechanism from the steel beam to the RC column via the embedded steel profile.

–
Figure 11. Load–drift envelope curves and the yielding points.

In both specimens, the first yielding took place at the location of rosette 1 (at 0.88% drift for SC1
and 1.38% drift for SC2). The use of two additional plates increased the steel area that was under tension
due to the force transmission from the upper flange of the steel beam to the web of the embedded
steep profile. In particular, even after the first yielding, the specimens behaved linearly. This is an
advantage of the proposed hybrid joint detail that allows for the formation of plastic hinges within the
steel parts to dissipate energy without any impact on the global behavior of the joint. The yielding of
the web panel in shear was detected by rosette R2 at 1.71% drift for SC1 and 2.57% for SC2 (see Table 3)
It is noted that after the yielding of the steel web panel in shear, the specimen resistance almost no
longer increased.
column to spread. The yielding at D3’s
location took place before the one at D2’s location proves that the embedded steel profile changed
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 11 of 17

Table 3. Joint-bending moments and the corresponding drift at several yielding points.

Yielding at
Specimen
D1 D2 D3 T1 T2 T3 R1 R2 R3 R4
Drift (%) 2.01 2.41 1.79 1.65 1.52 4.35 0.88 1.71
SC1
Joint-bending
670 711 631 598 566 774 382 614
moment (kN)
Drift (%) 3.2 1.89 1.56 2.34 3.92 3.75 1.38 2.57 1.66 3.4
SC2
Joint-bending
881 700 611 788 913 908 561 820 640 894
moment (kN)

The experimental results concerning the yielding of the rebars (points T1 and D1 in Figure 6) in
the joint region showed the efficiency of the additional plates. For instance, the yielding occurred
earlier in SC1 at these positions. This can be explained by the fact that the stirrups of the specimen
SC1 contributed directly to the shear resistance while those of specimen SC2 were open-loop stirrups,
which were non-structural reinforcements. The efficiency of the additional plates is also seen in the
crack pattern (Figures 7 and 8). Indeed, the number of cracks and the crack openings were more
important at the joint panel in specimen SC1. One can conclude that the steel plates can replace the
shear resisting stirrups in a joint panel.
The order of the yielding at the location of strain gauges D2 and D3 indicates that the use of the
embedded steel allowed for the force from the beam to the column to spread. The yielding at D3’s
location took place before the one at D2’s location proves that the embedded steel profile changed the
distribution of the column bending moment, as well as the way the force was transferred from the steel
beam to the column. Indeed, the yielding at D2 after the one at D3 means that the force acting from the
longitudinal rebar on concrete via the strut-and-tie mechanism decreased in the joint region. Thus, the
risk of concrete failure in the joint region was less in specimen SC2 than specimen SC1.
Looking at the location of strain gauge T2, the yielding occurred early in specimen SC1 (at
1.52% drift) but very late in specimen SC2 (at 3.92%). This is to say that the force transmission from
the embedded profile to the RC column was not the same in the two specimens. In specimen SC1,
the point R1 located in the web of the embedded profile was subjected to a significant tensile force
(compared to specimen SC2) from the upper flange of the steel beam. As a result, the yielding at R1
took place earlier, which caused the additional tensile force in the stirrups. Furthermore, there were
more diagonal cracks around the location of T2 in specimen SC1 than specimen SC2. On the other
hand, in specimen SC2, because of the two additional plates, the stiffness was locally reinforced at the
joint region; therefore, although the transmitted force of the beam was larger, the embedded steel part
in specimen SC2 could spread the force in a distributed way to the surrounding concrete. This explains
why the yielding at the locations of T2 and T3 of the specimen SC2 occurred almost at the same applied
load. Meanwhile, the yielding at the location of T3 of specimen SC1 took place later, namely at 4.35%
drift, because the embedded steel part was not stiff enough to spread the force in a distributed way to
the surrounding concrete.

4.4. Stiffness Deterioration

Due to concrete cracking and material yielding during the cyclic loading, the stiffness of the
elements decreased, this phenomenon is known as stiffness degradation. In this study, the stiffness
degradation was assessed using the secant stiffness determined from each complete hysteresis loop.
The secant stiffness was determined using the slope of a line passing through the peak loads at both
directions. It represents the ability to resist deformation. The stiffness degradation ratio versus drift is
demonstrated in Figure 12 and Table 4.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 12 of 17

Push Pull

Step 3 Step 2 Step 1 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Figure 12. Stiffness degradation ratio.

Table 4. Joint-stiffness degradation.

Pull SC1 SC2 Push SC1 SC2

Drift (%) Stiffness
t Degradation (%) Drift
t (%) Stiffness Degradation (%)
0.25 100 100 −0.25 100 100
0.5 94.12 92.44 −0.25
−0.5 94.03 92.43
0.75 88.11 86 88.03 87.27
−0.5
−0.75
1 80.94 81.77 −1 82.24 82.61
1.25 75.88 76.80 −0.75
−1.25 77.27 78.18
1.5 72.09 72.19 −1−1.5 73.09 74.13
1.75 68.76 69.45 −1.25
−1.75 70.10 70.33
2 64.56 66.36 −1.5−2 65.81 66.44
2.25 59.91 62.80 60.92 63.09
−1.75
−2.25
2.5 55.39 59.29 −2.5 56.82 60.01
3 48.17 52.75 −2 −3 48.58 53.49
3.5 41.98 46.96 −2.25
−3.5 42.83 47.37
4 37.55 41.75 −2.5−4 38.15 42.16
4.5 33.07 37.42 −3−4.5 33.64 37.99
5 29.61 33.82 −5 30.14 34.41
−3.5
5.5 26.73 30.66 −5.5 26.82 31.09
−4
−4.5
It was observed that the joint stiffness gradually degraded.
−5 There was no sudden drop in stiffness.
This means that the local failures did not affect the global
−5.5 behavior of the joint. It can be seen that
up to 2% drift, the stiffnesses of the specimens were almost the same. After 2% drift, the stiffness of
specimen SC2 degraded less than specimen SC1. This was in agreement with the order of yielding
points presented in Section 4.3. At the high drift levels, the stiffness of specimen SC2 was about 16.2%
greater than that of specimen SC1. At the end of the test, this value was about 21.2%. This highlights
the contribution of the supplementary plates on the joint stiffness.

4.5. Energy Dissipation

The energy dissipation characteristics of a member are an important measure of its seismic
performance. The energy dissipation in each cycle was calculated from the enclosed area within the
hysteresis loop for each cycle. The cumulative energy dissipation was computed by summing the
energy dissipated in previous cycles. Figure 13 presents the definition of the dissipated energy of one
hysteresis loop and the maximum dissipated energy that could be theoretically dissipated within the
same load and displacement limits, assuming a perfectly plastic response. The dissipated energy is
illustrated as the black solid hatched area.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 13 of 17

Figure 13. Definition of energy dissipation.

Figure 14a presents the cumulated dissipated energy at each drift level, including the total
cumulated dissipated energy. Figure 14b shows the energy dissipation ratio at each displacement level
where two loading cycles were performed. For the drift levels under 2%, the dissipated energy slowly
increased with respect to the loading cycle. However, the dissipated energy ratio was smaller than
10%, which shows there was a linear relationship between the drift and the joint-bending moment.
During step 2, from 2% to 4% drift, the dissipated energy quickly increased. This can be explained
by the fact that the yielding points in steel in step 1 became the yielding regions in step 2, where the
energy dissipated during cyclic loading.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

(a): Energy dissipation per cycle versus drift (b): Energy dissipation ratio per cycle versus drift

Figure 14. Energy dissipation for each cycle.

During loading step 2, the dissipated energy of specimen SC1 was 4.8% greater than specimen
SC2. As for loading step 3, the dissipated energy increased for both specimens but was 9.5% more
for specimen SC2. According to Figure 11, the embedded steel profile of SC1 yielded at 1–2% –– drift;
therefore, from 2–4% –
– drift, the yielded region propagation resulted in the high energy dissipation ratio.
The embedded steel profile of SC2 yielded at 1.5–4% drift.––Thus, after 4% drift, the yielded region was
still able to propagate, resulting in the high energy dissipation ratio during loading step 3. As can be
seen from Figure 14b, from the beginning to the end of the test, the energy dissipation ratio of SC1 was
greater than SC2. This was due to the steel yielding taking place earlier in SC1 than in SC2. Therefore,
after 4% drift, the energy dissipation ratio of SC1 slowly increased, while that of SC2 quickly increased.
At the end of the test (5.5% drift), the energy dissipation ratio of SC2 tended toward that of SC1.
Figure 15 and Table 5 present the cumulative energy dissipation of the two specimens, SC1 and SC2.
One can observe that between both specimens, there was almost no difference. As expected, the energy
dissipation was small when the drift was smaller than 2% and quickly increased at higher drifts. At
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 14 of 17

the end of the test, the total cumulative energy dissipation in SC2 was 3.5% more compared to SC1.
Therefore, the use of the additional plates instead of structural stirrups did not change considerably
the energy dissipation capacity of the structure Moreover, at the high level of drift, the additional
plates favored the formation of yielding regions, resulting in the high energy dissipation capacity of
the structure.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Figure 15. Cumulative energy dissipation versus drift.

Table 5. Cumulative energy dissipation.

SC1 SC2
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1cle 2 Cycle 2
Drift (%) (%) Cumulative Energy Dissipation
0.25 0.049 0.058 0.04 0.046
0.5 0.321 0.398 0.24 0.276
0.75 1.213 1.402 0.996 1.175
1 3.244 3.63 2.865 3.258
1.25 6.64 7.22 5.978 6.562
1.5 11.29 12.08 10.38 11.14
1.75 17.81 18.77 16.31 17.31
2 28.44 29.7 25.31 26.75
2.25 43.2 44.64 38.27 40.08
2.5 62.36 63.92 55.48 57.53
3 89.67 91.18 81.03 83.03
3.5 125.68 127.48 116.08 118.34
4 170.58 172.54 162.08 164.54
4.5 224.38 226.84 219.68 222.84
5 287.78 290.54 290.19 294.24
5.5 361.18 364.24 373.82 378.76

4.6. Ductility
The ductility of a structure is evaluated using the amount of energy that may be dissipated
through plastic deformations. The ductility concept is used in the practice of seismic-resistant design
and allows, depending on the used structural system, for a reduction in the seismic forces and can
control the level of damage produced during medium and strong earthquakes. The displacement
ductility of the specimen is represented by the displacement ductility factor m, which is defined as the
ratio of ultimate displacement du to the yield displacement dy . These displacements are determined
from the envelope curve of the hysteresis loops (Figure 11). The ultimate displacement is defined
as displacement corresponding to a 15% drop in the loading capacity. The yield displacement of a
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 15 of 17

specimen is determined based on the general yielding method, as shown in Figure 16. An elastic
behavior occurs where the initial tangent stiffness intersects the horizontal line passing the peak
–
strength at point A. A vertical line passing the point A intersects the load–displacement envelope curve
at point B. A secant line passing the point O and the point B intersects the horizontal peak strength
line at point C. A vertical line passing point C intersects the envelope curve at point D, which is the
yielding point [17].

dy dmax du

Figure 16. Definition of the yield point according to the general yielding method.

As can be seen in Table 6, specimen SC1 reached the yielding point before specimen SC2.
For instance, specimen SC1 yielded at 2.1% drift, which corresponded to a joint-bending moment of 671.8
kNm, while specimen SC2 yielded at 2.4% drift (a 15.8% increase compared to SC1), which corresponded
to a joint-bending moment of 791 kNm (a 17.7% increase compared to SC1). In correlation with the
yielding of the embedded steel profile, one can see that the yielding point of the specimen was at about
the same load level of the yielding of the steel web panel in shear. As a result, the use of additional
plates in the joint region improved the shear resistance, and thus, the joint resistance. After reaching
the yielding point, the bending-resistance moment of both specimens kept increasing. Compared with
the bending moment at the yielding point, the ultimate bending moment increased by about 14.4% in
specimen SC1 and about 16.2% in specimen SC2. This ratio is an important response characteristic
of the specimen and is called the specimen load sustainability. Furthermore, the ultimate bending
moment of SC2 was 19.6% higher than that of SC1. At the yielding point, compared to the initial
stiffness, the specimen SC1 lost about 36.7% stiffness at the yielding point and about 62.1% at the
ultimate point. As for specimen SC2, these values were 39.5% and 65.9%, respectively.

Table 6. Joint-bending moment and drift at different characteristic points.

Yielding Point Limit Point

SC1
My (kNm) dy Mmax dmax
Pull 679.76 2.085 779.21 4
Push 663.68 2.098 757.25 4
Mean 671.77 2.092 768.23 4
Yielding Point Limit Point
SC2
My (kNm) dy Mmax dmax
Pull 799.95 2.415 927.33 5
Push 782.57 2.433 910.55 5
Mean 791.01 2.423 918.95 5

Note that the test ended at 5.5% drift. At this drift level, compared to the ultimate point,
the bending-resistance moment decreased by )2.8% in specimen SC1 and 0.5% in specimen SC2,
Pull 2.085 1
h 2.098 5
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 16 of 17

despite the lower value of the drift when the bending-resistance moment decreased to 85% of the
ultimate moment. Nevertheless, one can see that the tested specimens had a ductility coefficient greater
than 2.5%. According to Eurocode 8, it can be concluded that the studied RCS joint can be used as
a dissipative element in ductility class medium (DCM) structures. It should be noted that to study
the force transfer mechanism from the beam to the column via an embedded steel profile, the tested
specimens were designed to avoid failure in the steel beam. As a result, the ductility of the steel beam
was not exploited. Therefore, the ductility coefficient obtained from these tests was not representative
of the joint.

5. Conclusions
An experimental study on the seismic performance of a novel RCS beam-column joint has been
presented in this paper. The exterior RCS connection was designed with an H steel profile, which was
covered by two supplementary plates embedded inside an RC column and welded to the steel beam.
This type of beam-to-column joint displayed some advantages compared to the existing RCS joint
in terms of resistance and construction methods. Based on the analysis of the experimental results,
the following conclusions can be drawn:

• Using an encased steel profile for connecting steel beams to RC columns created several
plastic hinges, which increased the ductility and energy dissipation capacity without any impact
on the global behavior of structures.
• Using additional plates instead of the stirrups to resist the shear increased the joint moment-bearing
capacity of the joint by 19.6%.
• The specimen using additional plates had a failure mode that showed several advantages over
specimens using the stirrups to resist the shear. These advantages included fewer cracks and
smaller crack openings at the joint region, and a higher energy dissipation capacity at the high
drift level thanks to a more uniformly distributed force transmission from the beam to the column.
• Regarding the stiffness, the experimental results indicated that the stiffness degradation was
regular and the global behavior was not impacted by local failures. The stiffness of both tested
specimens was almost the same at low drift levels. However, the specimen with additional plates
was 16% stiffer than the specimen using the stirrups to resist shear at high drift levels.
• Regarding the energy dissipation capacity, both specimens had a high energy dissipation ratio.
The mean value of the energy dissipation ratio of the specimen using stirrups to resist the shear
was about 22.3% during the test, while this value was about 19.1% for the specimen using
additional plates. However, the cumulative energy dissipation of the latter was about 3.5% greater
than that of the former.
• Both specimens had a great ductility coefficient (at least 2.5%). In terms of moment-bearing
capacity, the specimen using additional plates was stronger than the specimen using the stirrups
to resist the shear.
• From the findings of this experimental research, it can be concluded that the studied hybrid joint
design was suitable for RCS structures under cyclic loads. In particular, using additional plates
instead of the stirrups to resist shear in the shear joint region is feasible from both practical and
mechanical points of view.

Author Contributions: D.D.L. and X.-H.N. wrote the original draft of manuscript, D.D.L. prepared and interpreted
the data, and Q.-H.N. revised and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development
(NAFOSTED) under grant number 107.01-2016.06.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2385 17 of 17

References
1. Deierlein, G.G.; Sheikh, T.M.; Yura, J.A.; Jirsa, J.O. Beam? Column Moment Connections for Composite
Frames: Part 2. J. Struct. Eng. 1989, 115, 2877–2896. [CrossRef]
2. Kanno, R.; Deierlein, G.G. Design Model of Joints for RCS Frames. In Composite Construction in Steel and
Concrete IV Conference 2000; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Alberta, Canada, 2000; pp. 947–958.
3. Parra-Montesinos, G.; Wight, J.K. Seismic Response of Exterior RC Column-to-Steel Beam Connections.
J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 1113–1121. [CrossRef]
4. Mirghaderi, S.R.; Eghbali, N.B.; Ahmadi, M.M. Moment-connection between continuous steel beams and
reinforced concrete column under cyclic loading. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2016, 118, 105–119. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Gong, X.; Zhang, S. Seismic performance of prefabricated high-strength concrete tube
column–steel beam joints. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2017, 21, 658–674. [CrossRef]
6. ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete. Guidelines for
design of joints between steel beam and reinforced concrete columns. J. Struct. Eng. 1994, 120, 2330–2357.
[CrossRef]
7. Nishiyama, I.; Kuramoto, H.; Noguchi, H. Guidelines: Seismic Design of Composite Reinforced Concrete
and Steel Buildings. J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130, 336–342. [CrossRef]
8. Kuramoto, H.; Nishiyama, I. Seismic Performance and Stress Transferring Mechanism of
Through-Column-Type Joints for Composite Reinforced Concrete and Steel Frames. J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130,
352–360. [CrossRef]
9. Li, W.; Li, Q.-N.; Jiang, W.-S.; Jiang, L. Seismic performance of composite reinforced concrete and steel
moment frame structures—State-of-the-art. Compos. Part B Eng. 2011, 42, 190–206. [CrossRef]
10. Tao, M.-X.; Fan, J.-S.; Nie, J.-G. Seismic behavior of steel reinforced concrete column–steel truss beam hybrid
joints. Eng. Struct. 2013, 56, 1557–1569. [CrossRef]
11. Zibasokhan, H.; Behnamfar, F.; Behfarnia, K. The new proposed details for moment resisting connections of
steel beam to continuous concrete column. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2016, 19, 156–169. [CrossRef]
12. Eghbali, N.B.; Mirghaderi, S.R. Experimental investigation of steel beam to RC column connection via a
through-plate. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2017, 133, 125–140. [CrossRef]
13. Somja, H.; Hjiaj, M.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Plumier, A.; Degée, H. THE SMARTCOCO DESIGN GUIDE FOR HYBRID
CONCRETE-STEEL STRUCTURES. In Proceedings of the 12th international Conference on Advances in
Steel-Concrete Composite Structures—ASCCS 2018, Valencia, Spain, 27–29 June 2018; pp. 749–755.
14. Nguyen, X.H.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Le, D.D.; Mirza, O. Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of New RCS
Connection. Structure 2017, 9, 53–62. [CrossRef]
15. Nguyen, X.H.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Le, D.D. Static behavior of novel RCS through-column-type joint: Experimental
and numerical study. J. Steel Compos. Struct. 2019, 32, 111–126.
16. European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 4, EN1994-1-1 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete
Structures-Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings; European Committee for Standardization (CEN):
Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
17. Li, B.; Lam, E.S.S.; Wu, B.; Wang, Y.-Y. Experimental investigation on reinforced concrete interior beam–column
joints rehabilitated by ferrocement jackets. Eng. Struct. 2013, 56, 897–909. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).